TeacherOfPhilosophy

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
Philosophy
logiczombie
intp
Information War

Posts

Total: 133
#61
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
False, i.e 3RU, humans have observed the creation of energy { fermionic matter and bosonic forces } ---aka occupied space---    from where before, there was nothing  aka non-occupied space.

Fact  is verification of truth of what is known and via observation i.e. sensorial only or via instrumentation that may confirmed what is observed by the senses.



3RU...."Not necessarily.
All we can say, "for a fact" is that energy is apparently indestructible.
Not necessarily.
It's a bit of an astronomical leap to say "not created" (especially for "people of faith").
It would seem to be more accurate to say that any hypothetical "origin" (or non-origin) of this apparently indestructible energy is (currently) beyond our epistemological limits.


#62
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@ebuc
Yes,  quantum mechanics states that, on a very, very tiny scale and for very, very, very short lengths of time, energy can be spontaneously be created and destroyed.
#63
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
For English, I accept definitions as given by THE standard of the English language: the OED, unabridged, which I own in 20 volumes; the most complete and unabridged dictionary of the lexicon because it is the only dictionary that offers a complete historic etymology of all words, and not just their current:

Truth: A. n.
 I. Loyalty, faithfulness, etc.; cf. troth n. I.

 1. The quality or character of being true to a person, principle, cause, etc.; steadfast allegiance; faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, constancy. In later use only with to. Now somewhat rare.

II. Something that conforms with fact or reality.
 5.
 a. True statement; report or account which is in accordance with fact or reality. Chiefly in  to tell (also speak, say) the truth (also (now archaic) without the): to speak truly, to report the matter as it really is; 


Fact: A. n.
 I. Senses relating primarily to action.
 1. An action, a deed, a course of conduct; (formerly also occasionally) †an effect, a result. Also as a mass noun: action, deeds, as opposed to words. Now somewhat rare.

 II. Senses relating primarily to truth.
 6. Law.
 a. The sum of circumstances and incidents of a case, looked at apart from their legal bearing.
b. In plural with the same sense. Also: items of information used or usable as evidence.

There for facts exist irrespective of unknowns (unknowns do not apply). Correct?
No, not correct.  Both truth and fact, as I earlier demonstrated, as represented by my reference to "geocentrism," and "heliocentrism," were, after all, merely beliefs, and not truth or facts. The truth and/or fact of the galaxy, and the universe at large, is something entirely different than either description, which never were truth or fact. The truth is, and always was, some other form, even though at their separate times of  belief, unknown at the time. There is nothing in either definition declaring that truth and fact must be known to be truth and fact, because "reality" obviously includes what is unknown. Tell me, for example, that we known everything about clouds [we don't] though we see the evidence [truth and/or fact] of them virtually daily.

And, 
there for
is: therefore, not "ther for."
Try again, my friend. Someday, you'll get it right..
#64
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
Fact  is verification of truth of what is known and via observation i.e. sensorial only or via instrumentation that may confirmed what is observed by the senses.
Observed by how many senses? And do you limit "senses" to the strict five we appear to have, even though there is indication that there are more than five? Why impose a limit when there may be no limit?
#65
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW

Yes,  quantum mechanics states that, on a very, very tiny scale and for very, very, very short lengths of time, energy can be spontaneously be created and destroyed.

"The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another). It was after nuclear physics told us that mass and energy are essentially equivalent - this is what Einstein meant when he wrote E= mc^2 - that we realized the 1st law of thermodynamics also applied to mass. Mass became another form of energy that had to be included in a thorough thermodynamic treatment of a system. (For a very important note on the difference between matter and mass, see here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/#2.1).

"The first thing we have to do is determine what a "closed system" is. When we look at a physical situation and draw an imaginary circle around it, we're defining a system. A refrigerator, for example, can be a thermodynamical system. But once we've specified that the system is closed, it means that everything inside the system at that moment - the total amount of energy, be it potential energy (mass can be thought of as a kind of potential energy) or kinetic energy or both - must stay at that same, constant level."

Observe that a "closed system" is an imaginary construct: "draw an imaginary circle." So, if imaginary, draw a circle around the universe. Then apply Clausius' first law of thermodynamics, and it still stipulates that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but merely transferred one to the other.  The dialog continues:

"Now, there's a slight hitch in what we've said so far, and that's quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics states that, on a very, very tiny scale and for very, very, very short lengths of time, energy can be spontaneously be created and destroyed. Kind of like boiling water, where bubbles spontaneously appear and burst, energy - in the form of particles - can spontaneously appear from the void of spacetime, exist for a tremendously short amount of time, and disappear again."

The bubbles do not appear out of nothing; they appear as heated, vaporized pockets of air [matter]. They enlarge, rise to the surface, and burst, releasing an equivalent mass of energy. No magic, nor matter destroyed, and not even quantum mechanics. But it is "kind of like" the first law of thermodynamics: transference from matter to energy with nothing lost, nothing gained, just as the law states in a closed system [a pan of boiling water].

#66
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw

 II. Senses relating primarily to truth.

You’re using this definition of fact, correct? 
Read it again and put an emphasis on senses.

again, facts exist irrespective of unknowns.

I’m not trying.
#67
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Read it again and put an emphasis on senses.
Which senses? How many of them? Try to be specific; there's method in the madness. 
#68
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Which senses? How many of them? Try to be specific; there's method in the madness. 
Does it matter? I think you’re losing it.
#69
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Yes, it matters. If you acknowledge evidence from just five senses, you're unnecessarily limiting potential knowledge of truth.
#70
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW
You are in error, cause whatever virtual particles that seeming come out of nowhere do and are balanced out overall.

Also virtural particles are mostly mathematics, not direcly observed quanta.  Humans do observe there effect on other particles ergo indirect evidence of there very brief and accounted for existence.

The idea that occupied space can be created from where before there was only a truly non-occupied space is truly irrational, illogical, lacks common sense at best and mentally deranged at worst.

Our finite, occupied space is embraced/surrounded by macro-infinite non-occupied space. All talk of infinite occupied space is more irrational, illogical lack of common sense derangement that has not any shred of evidence.

Finite = integrity ergo wholeness

Infinite = lack of integrity ergo anti-wholeness
#71
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Alright I’ll keep that in mind.
Now, do you have any arguments against my conclusion?
#72
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,078
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Reece101
Philosophy is generally, reasonable clever people trying to out-clever each other.....An observation not a criticism.

Nothing to get hung up about.
#73
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@FLRW

......“I have no problem at all with the fact that these virtual particles are real things that determine the forces in nature (except for gravity),” said Lee Roberts, an experimental physicist and professor at Boston University, located only two blocks down from Gregg Jaeger’s office.

...."All these interactions sum up to give the muon an “anomalous” magnetic moment, anomalous compared to the results of theories that came before QFT. But with QFT, physicists have predicted the magnetic moment almost exactly, like marking off the lines on a football pitch blindfolded and getting them accurate to the width of a hair. The accuracy of these calculations relies indispensably on the virtual particles.

.....With QFT being so accurate, it is clear that there must be some kind of reality to it. Perhaps the question then is not so much whether virtual particles are real, but what exactly the general picture of reality is, according to QFT."...... { Quantum Field Theory }

QFT ---via aid of Feynman diagrams--- mathematically account for the muons and other bosonic force particles values here, there and between here and there.
#74
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Now, do you have any arguments against my conclusion?
Pease remind me again what that is? I've lost track.
#75
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
Your statement "Now, there's a slight hitch in what we've said so far, and that's quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics states that, on a very, very tiny scale and for very, very, very short lengths of time, energy can be spontaneously be created and destroyed. Kind of like boiling water, where bubbles spontaneously appear and burst, energy - in the form of particles - can spontaneously appear from the void of spacetime, exist for a tremendously short amount of time, and disappear again." validates my point. The boiling water part is meaningless and is just meant to be used to illustrate an imaginary vision.
#76
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
Finite = integrity ergo wholeness

Infinite = lack of integrity ergo anti-wholeness 
So, strictly considered mathematically, a ray is integrity and wholeness, whereas a line lacks integrity and wholeness?
That conclusion, is, itself, illogical. Please refer to the definition of both mathematic terms.
#77
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@FLRW
Your statement

And not imaginary vision. One can observe the boiling process and the conversion of matter [a bubble] to energy, thus clinically observing the demonstrated Clausius' first law of thermodynamics in a closed system [a boiling pot of water]. If that's imaginary vision to you, your problems are greater than a jaded view of philosophy.
#78
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
So, strictly considered mathematically, a ray is integrity and wholeness, whereas a line lacks integrity and wholeness?
Huh? Youve lost me here, I dont recall ever using the word "ray" on this forum the whole time { finite } Ive been a member { 2 or more years includes old Dart }.

That conclusion, is, itself, illogical. Please refer to the definition of both mathematic terms.
Huh?  Flaw, Ive been very clear here the whole time { finite } Ive been posting in DArt with my Cosmic Trinity Outline.

1} Metaphyiscal-1 { spirit-1 } is mind/intellect/concept ex concept of time space, god, rays-of-sunshine, footballs, Toyotas i.e a concept is not occupied or non-occupied space.
~~~~~~~~~conceptual line-of-demarcation--------
2} Metaphysical-2, macro-infinite aka non-occupied Space, that, embraces/surrounds the following,

3} finite and eteranally existent, occupied space Universe Uni-V-erse.

When you want to have a rational, logical common sense disscussion  ---which I dont think you do--- then begin with those three, the greatest wholisitic set. 'Sets' is one primary branch of mathmatics.

Now read the above and attempt comprehension, then read my lips { text } as follows;

Finite = integrity ergo wholeness
Infinite = lack of integrity ergo anti-wholeness 
___ = finite line

There exists no infinite lines of Universe, only conceptually infinite lines, numbers Pi etc.

#79
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
You did not introduce "ray," I did. It is a mathematic representation of what is finite; a thing with a beginning point extending to infinity in one direction, but not both. Therefore, as a conceptual whole, it is finite because it is truncated at one end.
Nor did you introduce "line;" I did. It is a mathematic representation of what is infinite; a thing without a beginning point extending to infinity in both directions. Therefore, as a conceptual whole, it is infinite because it has no beginning or end.
Therefore, you construct that finite is wholeness and infinite is not wholeness is totally flawed because there is no such thing as a finite line. By definition, that is descriptive of only a ray, which is not wholeness.

Your last comment of the universe being limited is, therefore, wrong, because the universe is infinite, in all directions, not only contained on a line, being only bi-directional. A galaxy is a limited thing, but the trillions [so far] of galaxies are all contained in the infinite space of the universe. The universe contains both finite and infinite space, both occupied and unoccupied space.
#80
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
Facts exist irrespective of unknowns.
#81
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
Your #52:

My argument is “a fact exists regardless of unknowns.”
While fauxlaw argues that “unknowns must also apply.”
Facts exist among what is unknown, such as the fact that geocentrism is wrong, wrong, always was wrong, is wrong, ever will be wrong. Therefore, even if a fact is unknown, as it was anciently, that fact, as an unknown, was still a fact, and must, therefore, ultimately, apply, even when it is unknown. Which means we cannot always merely depend on what we are able to observe at any given point in history. We once believed geocentrism was correct, and even depended on it as fact. We discovered we were wrong. We once believed it was a fact that man cannot fly under his own power. We now know, given proper conditions, such as already being in the air, and with added equipment entirely within our power to control, a human can literally fly. It was always a fact, but it was unknown. Therefore, the unknown applies. How many more examples do you need?
#82
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
According to your definition facts have basis in senses. Also according to your definition geocentrism wouldn’t of been a fact to begin with although people thought otherwise.  Or are you wanting to use another definition?
Facts =/= truth. Facts are evidence based while truth isn’t necessarily. 

#83
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Reece101
More correctly:

A fact    is a perception                        of reality.

A truth is a perception that matches reality.

This is because [one example] we must recall that science [empirical evidence, if you will; therefore fact] models reality, but seldom is reality.
Example: the classic demonstration model of the effect of a tsunami on beachfront property development is a rectangular, flat-sided steel tank with sides perpendicular to the floor. There is a miniature beach at one end, and a large paddle at the other to create tsunami waves which crash against the beach. I've been ion all five oceans. I've never seen one look like that, with flat sides and bottom and a paddle at one shoreline. So, it is not reality, and not even a very good model of same, but it seems to work. A true model would match the reality.

By this comparison, both fact and truth have basis in senses, but I don't limit senses to the tradition five humans have. There are more, but we are not well practiced in them. If we were, ewe would find science far more easy to demonstrate truth, and not just fact. For this reason, I find fact more malleable than truth

Sorry, I'll take truth long before fact by these demonstrations.

#84
Reece101
Reece101's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 1,973
3
2
2
Reece101's avatar
Reece101
3
2
2
-->
@fauxlaw
All that aside, at least you’ve come around. 

#85
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
fauxlaw, you are clueless and have no desire to have rational, logical common sense conversation, ergo, a total waste of time and effort to engage with.

My error.  :--( so sorry to all concerned. 
#86
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@ebuc
try a mirror, bud
#87
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,611
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
-->
@fauxlaw
A fact    is a perception                        of reality.
You are confusing fact with belief. It was the belief in geocentrism that was wrong. You might be interested that  scientists have found that damage in a certain part of the brain is linked to an increase in religious fundamentalism.
Topic's author
#88
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
humans have observed the creation of energy { fermionic matter and bosonic forces }
Can you say for certain that "quantum foam" is "created" or even "new"?  Or is it perhaps simply "redistributed"?
Topic's author
#89
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
...such as the fact that geocentrism is wrong, wrong, always was wrong, is wrong, ever will be wrong.
So, how does your personally preferred definition of FACT prevent "geocentrism" style mistakes from happening now and into the future?
Topic's author
#90
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Also virtural particles are mostly mathematics, not direcly observed quanta.
Well stated.